| OFFICIAL REPLY 
, eo 


OF THE 


* : 


BOARD OF MISSIONS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, 


Og 


TO 


‘ | SIX LETTERS 


OF THE 


REV. ABSALOM PETERS, 


Pal ; Corresponding Secretary of the American Home Missionary Soctety, 

ENTITLED, 

2 “A@ Plea for Anion in the Bases.” 
PUBLISHED IN THE 


“ CINCINNATI JOURNAL,” 


IN FHE COURSE OF THE MONTHS OF DECEMBER AND JANUARY LAST. 
% 


a BB Stern 


PHILADELPHIA: " 
; Clark & Raser, Printers, 33 Carter's Alley. 
1831. . 


AN OFFICIAL REPLY, 
&§e. 


To the Christian Public. 


Ir is with no ordinary feelings of regret and anxiety, that the Board 
of Missions appear before the Christian community, at the present 


time, in the attitude of self-defence, as respondents to certain allega-_ 
tions contained in the above named letters. Had these allegations been 
of a light and trivial nature in themselves—had they been founded on 
publications which had not been duly authorized and sanctioned by the 
Board—or had they proceeded from the pen of a private individual, — 
sustaining to the Christian community the relations and responsibili- | 


ties simply of an ordinary minister of the gospel, we might consist- 
ently have passed over in silence, although we could not have read 
without emotions of grief and surprise, the unexpected productions 
which now engage our attention—But this is not the case. The alle- 
gations made, are of a very grave and serious nature; they are founded 
on two formal and official documents, both of which were duly author- 
ized and sanctioned by the Board of Missions, and one of which was 
“ accepted and adopted,’ with great unanimity, by the General Assem- 
bly, and put into the hands of our Ex, Committee for publication and 
distribution throughout the churches. The author of these allegations 
is not only an ordained minister in the Presbyterian church, but he, 
also, sustains to an important national missionary institution, a very 
high, and sacred, and official relation—and although they are not given 
to the public in the usual form of strictly official communications, yet 
they are sanctioned by the name of a gentleman who is universally 
known and recognised as the official organ and agent of the American 
Home Missionary Society—and are in accordance with the “counsel”’ 
of his “esteemed associates in the Home Missionary enterprise, and other 
valued friends of the cause,’ as Mr. P. explicitly declares in the first 
part of his second letter. 

These allegations, it appears from the same letter, were not brought 
before the public incautiously, or in haste, but after the apprehended 
“impropriety and inaccuracy of its statements” [those of our last an- 
nual report] had been “reflected on” for more than six months, with 
“unmingled regret.” This was also done under a deep impression of 
“the solemn responsibilities involved, and of the consequences which 
might ensue. “We know,” continues the writer, “we know that such 
an exposure may occasion a malignant satisfaction in the minds of op- 
, posers; and we regret its necessity, especially at the present time, when 
the eyes of an infidel world are watching with eagerness for the halting 
_% of Christians. But if the enemies of Christianity, and of the benevo- 
© lent efforts of the day, must have occasion to reproach the professed 
“+ followers of Christ, let them be compelled to do so in full view of the 
~~ fact, that ourselves are the first to expose every error in the church or 


ri its members, which cannot be otherwise corrected. It is our solemn 


1 onORG6 


250 


4 : t<. 4 Fe, 
Sa 2 W al Ta 


Y \o' 


€ 


‘ 


“SUX V 


_ ministry, 


4 


impression that no fears as to the consequences, ought to bear the 
weight of a feather against our high and holy obligations, as Chris- 
tians, to provide things honest in the sight of all men. I cannot, there- 
fore, convince myself that, on account of the delicacy of my official re- 
lations, it is any longer my duty, as an individual, to shrink from the 
responsibilities of a step which a just regard to the honour and purity 
of our benevolent institutions appears so imperiously to demand.” 

Although the Secretary, in the last sentence above quoted, speaks of 
himself as “ an individual,’ yet he seems to have been fully aware 
of “ the delicacy of his official relations,’ and of the extreme difficulty 
of addressing the public over his own proper signature, without 
necessarily involving the Society he serves, in the responsibilities 
incurred. He sometimes speaks in the singular, and sometimes in the 
plural numbers; and we are greatly at a loss to determine, when he 
employs the terms “ we,” “ ourselves,’ &c. whether he intends to speak 
of himself as an individual, or in the name of his “ valued friends in the 
” or of the Society whose plans and operations are said to 
have been “ misrepresented.”’ We are entirely convinced, however, 
that the letters of Mr. P. as they have been presented to the public, 
will be regarded generally, in the same light as they would have been, 
had he actually appended to his name, his usual title of Correspond- 
ing Secretary. : 

Under such circumstances we cannot remain silent, without a tacit 
acknowledgment of the justice and propriety of charges—plainly and 
deeply implicating our character and conduct as men, as christians, and 
as servants of the churches—of charges, which go directly to impeach 
publicly, all the “exclusive friends” of the Roard, their Western 
Agents, and “the highest judicatory of the church itself.’ For 
such charges we are sure there is no real foundation; and of this fact 
we hope entirely to satisfy the public mind. We have been deeply 
afflicted to find ourseives repeatedly assailed in Mr. P.’s letters, with 
the unholy weapons of irony and sarcasm; but these we shall studiously 
avoid in our reply. 

We present, in the first place,— 


THE CHARGES ALLEGED AGAINST THE BOARD OF MISSIONS. 


These we shall exhibit in the very words of Mr. P. as we find them 
in various parts of the letters, entitled “.2 Plea for Union in the West.” 
In the first letter the Board are charged with having made “ several 
statements,” “injurious in their tendency,” and “not sustained by 
facts,”—‘ assertions,” which the writer says, “ it is my duty publicly 
to disprove.’ Of one statement in the letter of the Board, he says— 
“so far from its having the slightest foundation in fact, the very reverse 
of this statement is true.” Again he says— These statements I have 
hastily selected from the letter under consideration, as specimens of the 
erroneous representations with which it abounds.” 

In the second and third letters the Board is charged with “ assumed 
authority’’—* responsibility which disregards the authority of Sessions, 
Presbyteries and Synods,”—a “ sentence’ “ written for effect” or “ in- 
tended as a hyperbole ;’’ “a cluster of errors’? “incautiously thrown 
before the public, over the signature of an individual, claiming the 
authority of the highest judicatory of the cffurch.” | 

In his fourth letter, Mr. P. complains, “that representations unfa- 
vourable to the A. H. M.S. have been tadustriously circulated by some 


3 


of the zealous partizans of the Board, in the West,’ and throws out 
against our Cor. Secretary, the following unwarranted insinuation— 
“If the Secretary of the Board, in the ‘ extensive correspondence’ which 
he claims to have held with pastors, churches, §c. in the West, has 
taken as much pains, as in the letter under review, [{ the official letter of 
the Board,]| to depreciate the character and doings of the Society, it is 
no marvel, if, under the misapprehensions produced by such influences, 
some individuals and churches have been excited to address to the Board 
of Missions ‘ assurances of strong attachment and decided preference, and 
also to express their ‘deczded opposition to a united agency for missionary 
purposes.” 

In his fifth letter, Mr. P. charges the Board with entering into 
“details to depreciate the doings of the A. H. M. Society, and to magni- 
fy those of the Board—with “ erroneous assertions,” and “ depreciating 
comparisons” “as foreign as possible from the position to be proved.” 
He affirms positively, that “the Board of Missions has adopted, and _ 
prosecuted its plan of operations irrespective of previous organizations _ 
for missionary purposes,’ and then says—‘ Here, then, is the true 
reason why the Board of Missions has had none of those large and 
efficient auxiliaries which: have so much aided the A. H. M. Society.” 
Further quotations might be given from the letters, but these are suffi- 
cient to exhibit the very serious nature of the charges which have 
been publicly alleged by Mr. P. against the Boards; and that no injus- 
tice may be done to the writer, our readers are earnestly requested to 
refer to the letters named, and examine the foregoing quotations in the 
several connexions in which they may be found. We shall leave it for 
others to decide, whether it is proper and becoming for the Christian, 
under any circumstances, to employ such language, and publish it to 
the world, respecting the character and conduct of his fellow Christians. 
Certain we are, that no just provocation to such severity was given in 
the letter of the Board, or in their Annual Report; and we hope to be 
preserved, in the present communication, from any thing which may 
bear the slightest resemblance to it. Whether there be any real foun- 
dation for charges against the Board of so injurious and alarming a 
character, the public will be the better able to judge, after a candid 
and careful consideration of the following— 


FACTS AND EXPLANATIONS. 


1. As to the “ assumed authority of Mr. R.’s letter.’ It is a fact that 
the Secretary of the Board of Missions, was directed, by a vote of the 
Board, to do, precisely what was done. He assumed no authority; nor 
was there any assumption of authority on the part of the Board itself. 
It is well known to Mr. Peters, and to all reflecting men in the church, 
that the duties and responsibilities of conducting the missionary opera- 
tions of the General Assembly, devolve almost entirely on the mem- 
bers of the Board residing in Philadelphia. Distant members are not 
required or expected to attend the monthly meetings of the Board, and 
this would manifestly be impracticable, and as the members in the city 
were duly notified, and as more than twice the number necessary to 
form a quorum, actually did attend the meeting, at which the letter 
was directed to be prepared, it is difficult for us to account for the 
remarks of Mr. P. on this subject; nor shall we, indeed, attempt it. 
Let the remarks of Mr. P. on this subject be carefully re-examined, 
and let every man form his ewn judgment of the “ object.” 


6 


2. As to the “oBJECT OF THE LETTER: — 

The object of the letter has not been misapprehended by Mr. P.—It 
was expressly designed to discourage all further attempts to effect a union 
in the West, between the Assembly’s Board, and the A. H. M. Society 
—and this object was openly and frankly avowed in the letter itself, 
which consisted almost entirely of reasons, which the Board deemed 
satisfactory, why such attempts should be utterly abandoned. The 
relevancy and weight of those reasons are still perfectly apparent to 
the Board, and to its numerous patrons and friends in the West; and 
so entirely confident are we of the conviction they will carry to every 
candid mind, that we shall pass by, without any extended remarks, the 
greater portion of those two entire letters of Mr. Peters, which are de- 
signed as a reply to them. 

In the part of Mr. P.’s second letter, now under consideration, there 
are, however, a few incidental remarks, which we cannot forbear briefly 
to notice, in reference to the efforts of the H. M. Society to promote 
union, and the “ opposition of the Secretary and Agents of the Board 
of Missions” to their “plans.’’? It is, indeed, true, that opposition to 
the “plan”? of union proposed by Mr. Peters, has uniformly been 
avowed and manifested by the Board and its agents. The reasons of 
that opposition are assigned in our communication to the Presbytery 
of Cincinnati, and it is unnecessary here to repeat them. But let it 
not be supposed, for a moment, that we are opposed to the purity and 
peace of the Western churches. Far,very far from it. We are averse 
to the “plan” of union, because we are “fully persuaded” that it is net 
a good one, not feasible, by no means calculated to diminish, but greatly 
to increase the “collisions”? complained of by Mr. Peters. This opinion 
was expressed by the Board in their letter, and they declared also that 
they were fully convinced, that the proposed union would be “utterly 
disapproved and rejected by a large number of the Presbyteries, and 
a still larger number of the Sessions and Congregations in the West.” 
The correctness of these opinions Mr. P..explicitly denies, and casts 
upon the Board and its agents the blame of “nearly all the divisions 
which now exist in those churches.” The most direct way to settle 
this question, willbe to let the people of the West speak for them- 
selves. We shall therefore present in this connexion, a few of the 
many documents on which the opinion of the Board is founded. 


1. THE OPINION OF INDIVIDUALS IN OHIO, RESPECTING THE PROPOSED 
UNION. 


The following communication, signed by feve/ve ministers and four 
elders in Ohio, dated September 10th, 1830, was received at this Office 
early in November, and duly laid before the Board. 

: Ohio, September 10th, 1830. 
To the Board of Missions of the General Assembly. 

The undersigned, wishing you prosperity and peace, desire to inform 
you, that we rejoice in the increased extent and success of your mis- 
sionary operations. And we trust the Great Head of the church will, 
by your instrumentality, more and more bless the destitutions and va- 
cant churches of our denomination. We rejoice in the increasing con- 
fidence manifested by so many of the churches and individuals of our 
connexion, in your fidelity and energy; evidenced by expressions of 
appprobation and liberal contributions, our prayer and hope is, that 


7 


this confidence, and these contributions, may be increased an hundred 
fold, if necessary, until the whole energies of our denomination, so far 
as respects domestic missions, shall be concentrated in your Board, 
the regularly constituted organ for this work. We sincerely regret 
that there should be any hindrances to your full and free operations 
throughout the whole extent of the Presbyterian church in these United 
States. And it is with increased dissatisfaction that we notice the 
continued efforts of the Home Missionary Society, to counteract your 
measures, or to coerce you into a subordinate connexion. ‘Towards that 
institution, we could wish to cherish no feeling but that of kindly re- 
membrance of the good it had been instrumental of doing in the ex- 
treme exigency of the case. But its early and strong opposition to the 
reorganization of your body—its unceasing attempts ever since, to 
thwart your measures, or consolidate them with its own, have greatly 
lowered it in our opinion. Besides, we hesitate not to say, that under 
present circumstances, we view the operations of this non-ecclesiastical 
institution, within our church, as unconstitutional and intrusive. To 
the church herself (of every denomination) belongs the duty and privi- 
lege of cherishing and providing for her feeble and destitute portions. 
To the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church specially, is con- 
stitutionally confided the missionary operations within her jurisdiction. 
Your Board is the constituted organ to effect this object. And while 
with wisdom, integrity, and zeal, you persevere in the course you are 
now pursuing, you will, we believe, have the confidence, the prayers, 
and the alms of the churches, under God, to sustain you. But any sur- 
render by you, of the rights of the church, to institutions unknown to 
our church constitution, will greatly weaken the confidence of many 
Presbyterians in your integrity, and slacken their exertions for your 
support. The increasing innovations of late years, upon both the prin- 
ciples and discipline of our church, has become alarming to many, in 
their view endangering its peace and unity. Even now, the evil is seen 
and felt to an extent and degree, that nothing but a return and strict 
adherence to first principles, can remove: so we believe, and therefore 
speak: unwilling any longer, by our silence, to connive at what we 
believe to be of injurious tendency to the doctrines and government of 
that church, the vows of which are upon us. This communication, as 
we design it for your encouragement, so we are cordially willing that 
it should have publicity given to it, believing that, substantially, it ex- 
presses the views of many others in the Presbyterian church, as well as. 
those of the undersigned ministers and elders of that communion. 
Very respectfully, &c. 


2. RESOLUTIONS OF THE PRESBYTERY OF STEUBENVILLE, OHIO. 


Mount Pleasant, October 6th, 1830. 
SESSIONS OF THE PRESBYTERY OF STEUBENVILLE. 


“Resolved, unanimously, That we view the transaction of Missionary 
business to be especially the duty of the church, in her distinctive cha- 
racter. That we consider the present organization of the Board of 
Missions of the General Assembly, as most consistent with the order 
which should be taken in this matter—and hope, that that institution 
will continue and prosper. That it is most proper, that this Presbytery 
be an Auxiliary to that Board,” &c. &c. 

A true extract. | 
Cuaries Cuinron Beatry, Stated Clerk. 


8 


_ 3. RESOLUTIONS OF THE PRESBYTERY OF LANCASTER, OH10, 


Zanesville, October 22, 1830. 
SESSIONS OF THE LANCASTER PRESBYTERY. 


“Whereas repeated efforts have been made, and are likely to be re- 
newed, intended to produce an amalgamation of the Assembly’s Board 
of Missions and the A. H. M. Society; and whereas this Presbytery do, 
on many accounts, feel opposed to any amalgamation, which would 
sia the principles, character, and responsibility of the Assembly’s 

oard,— | 

Therefore, Resolved, Ist. That we deem any amalgamation of these 
Boards, as unnecessary, undesirable, and highly inexpedient. 

2d. That we view with regret and disapprobation, the efforts re- 
peatedly made to produce this amalgamations and hope, for the peace 
of the church, these efforts will be speedily discontinued. 

3d. That a copy of this preamble and these resolutions, be forwarded 
by the Stated Clerk, for publication in the Missionary Reporter.” 

“'To this decision, Messrs, Miles, Putnam and Whitehead entered 
their dissent,” 

A true extract. 
[ Attest, | James Cu.pertson, Stated Clerk. 


4, RESOLUTIONS OF THE PRESBYTERY OF RICHLAND, OHIO. 
Mansfield, (Ohio,) September 30, 1830. 

Rey. and dear Sir,—The Presbytery of Richland, in session at Can- 
ton, on Thursday, the 16th inst. adopted the following resolution:— 

“ Resolved, That this Presbytery express their hearty approbation of 
the Board of Missions of the General Assembly, in its onward course 
of efficiency and success, since its reorganization in 1828. This is as 
it should be—this Board being the regularly constituted organ for 
conducting missionary operations within the Presbyterian church. 
This Presbytery feel also that they are called, from the circumstances 
of the times, to express their decided disapprobation of the attempts 
made and making, in various quarters, to produce an amalgamation of 
the Assembly’s Board with the A. H. M. Society—a measure which 
this Presbytery would deprecate as a violation of both the spirit and 
letter of our well devised form of church government:—so many in- 
roads upon which have already been made, that it has, in view of this 
Presbytery, become indispensably necessary for all that wish to pre- 
serve inviolate the principles of government of the Presbyterian church, 
to take a decided and open stand in their maintenance, and in openly 
disapproving of all such measures as tend to weaken or impair the 
soundness of the one or the efficiency of the other. Such is the ten- 
dency, it is believed, of the operations of the Home Missionary Society 
in its distinctive, independent, and non-ecclesiastical character, within 
the Presbyterian church.”’ 

“ Resolved, That a copy of the above resolution be sent to the As- 
sembly’s Board of Missions by the Stated Clerk.” 

A true copy. 
James Rowxanp, Stated Clerk. 


These formal and official documents may serve as “specimens” of 
the sentiments entertained by some of the brethren of the West, and of 
the manner in which those sentiments haye been, from time to time, 


9 


expressed to the Board. Wemight add to these a number of commu- 
nications from highly respected and influential individuals in the West, 
of a similar import; but we deem it unnecessary. In the language of 
Mr. Peters, “ they will doubtless adopt such measures as they may judge 
expedient, to make known to the General Assembly, and to the Christian 
public, the true state of facts and their own wishes, on a subject in- 
volving interests so immensely important.” 


5. AS TO THE PUBLICATION OF THE LETTER OF THE BOARD. 


In his first letter, Mr. Peters uses the following very extraordinary 
language in reference to this letter:—*I do most unfeignedly regret 
that an opportunity was not afforded of correcting these statements before 
they were given to the public.” “ But that privilege was not allowed to 
us.’ “Why is it that this letter is brought before the public without 
its counterpart?” The plain import of these declarations is, that Mr. 
P. has been denied a privilege, and that the Christian public have been 
deprived of information, which the Board were sacredly bound to give. 
A few facts, in reference to the origin and publication of this letter, 
will serve to show whether there be any real cause for these complaints. 
Let it then be distinctly understood, that nether the Board of Missions, 
nor tts Secretary, nor its Ex. Committee, have had any concern whatever in 
the publication of this letter or its counterpart! On the contrary, tt was 
formally determined by the Board, that they would publish neither. They 
did, however, suppose, that the General Assembly had fully authorized 
them to answer, in a respectful manner, the communication of the Cin- 
cinnati Presbytery; and they did not once suspect that they were en- 
croaching either upon the prerogative or the “privilege’’ of Mr. Peters, 
when they ventured to forward their reply, without submitting it to 
him for “correction!’? The letter of the Board first appeared in the 
“ Cincinnati Christian Journals’? and we have since been informed, that 
it was published at the particular request of one of the Committee to 
whom it was addressed, on his own responsibility: and although this 
fact occurred several months ago, the letter has never yet been rEPUB- 
LISHED by the Board. The Letter of the Committee of the Cincinnati 
Presbytery was published in the same paper, Dec. 31, 1830, at the par- 
ticular request of Mr. Peters; and this has been preceded and followed 
by sax letters from Mr. P., containing the very serious charges, and the 
alarming “exposure” before alluded to. Still, however, the Board have 
till now maintained a profound silence. They have “published” no- 
thing, and they would probably have continued to be silent, had they 
not been constrained by a sense of duty to themselves, to the churches 
in the West, and to the General Assembly, whose servants they are, to 
publish the facts and explanations which are contained in this commu- 
nication. In view of these facts, on whom, we ask, rests the responsi- 
bility of the unprovoked attack which has been made, publicly, upon 
the Board, its Secretary, its Western Agents, and upon the General 
Assembly itself?—and where, we ask again, has Mr. P. found his au- 
thority for the declaration with which he commences his “srricruREs 
ON THE LAST REPORT OF THE BOARD OF missions,” “We are invited care- 
fully to analyze the report of the Board?’ The Board did, indeed, 
say, in their communication to the Committee of the Cincinnati Presby- 
tery, “ By carefully analyzing these Reports it will be found, &c.”—but 
was this an “¢nvitation” addressed to Mr. Peters? Is Mr. P. zdentified 
with that Committee? If not, why this “assumption” of affinity? Is 

B 


10 


there any thing here to justify either the matter or the manner of the 
“strictures” upon a report which was read to the General Assembly, 
“carefully examined” by a committee of five, and then deliberately 
“adopted, and put into the hands of the Ex. Committee for publica- 
tion?” Mr. P. not only affirms, “we are invited,” but he continues, 
“ This reminds me of a duty, Mr. Editor, which I have perhaps too 
long neglected, and to which I confess I have come with the greatest 
reluctance. Soon after the publication of the above Report, I did care- 
fully analyze some portions of it for my own satisfaction. The result 
was unexpectedly painful.” ) 

May we not inquire, by whom this dufy was imposed upon the Se- 
cretary of the A. H. M. Society? Was it by the Assembly? No record 
can be found in the minutes of that venerable body, authorizing and 
appointing Mr. P. to this “ painful’ office. Was it by the constitution 
of the Society which he serves?) We can find nothing there which im- 
poses such an obligation. We differ entirely with the Secretary, in his 
“ view of duty, too long neglected,’ and we are verily persuaded, that, 
“on account of the delicacy of his official relations,’ he would have 
been held entirely guiltless, had he altogether neglected to make these un- 
justifiable strictures upon our last Annual Report. The duty (if there 
were any) assumed and discharged, with the “ greatest reluctance,” by 
Mr. Peters, belonged to the Committee with whom the Board were in 
correspondence. Our letter was addressed to them, in their official cha- 
racter, and to them exclusively. They were referred to the reports of 
the two Boards, for the import and correctness of our statements; and 
it belonged to them alone, to detect the “errors,” and correct the “ mis- 
representations,’ with which Mr. P. affirms that our letter “ abounds.” 
Had they been left to speak for themselves, it is not at all probable, 
that the public would ever have been afflicted by “an exposure which 
may occasion a malignant satisfaction in the minds of opposers.” 


6. AS TO THE COMMITTEE OF THE CINCINNATI PRESBYTERY. 


In his second letter Mr. P. alludes briefly to the appointment of this 
Committee “to address the Board of Missions, and urge them to unite 
with the A. H. M. Society in the appointment of a common agency;”’ 
but he has omitted to inform the public, that he himself was present at 
the meeting of the Presbytery, and “urged them’ to make the appoint- 
ment. Of the prominent part which Mr. Peters took in that meeting 
of the Presbytery of Cincinnati, in July last, at which the above named 
Committee were appointed, we have received from a responsible indi- 
vidual, who was present, the following account—viz. 

“ On Monday afternoon, during the interval of worship, and on Tues- 
day, Mr. Peters spoke before Presbytery in favour of the wnion in the 
West between the two Boards of which you have heard so much. He 
commenced by reading an extract or extracts, if not all contained in 
pages 55, 56, of their last Report, making, in the meantime, his shrewd 
remarks upon them. He spoke of the plan of union in detail, which 
was referred to a respectable committee of the Assembly, and then dis- 
missed without a proper and righteous investigation, and also of the 
feasibility of this plan. He then adverted to a resolution which the 
Board of Missions passed some time before the sitting of the Assem- 
bly—after hearing of the Committee of Agency for the Home Mis- 
sionary in the West—not to unite with them. He spoke of the protest 
which was signed by a number of great names, some of whom were 


11 


mentioned; of the proceedings of the Assembly in dismissing the sub- 
ject of a plan of union in the West, as they did; and last of all, he ex- 
patiated very pathetically and feelingly on the evils growing out of the 
separate action of the two Boards—and remarked that he would spend 
his life, if need be, in effecting this union. These are the points upon 
which he dwelt in his speech. The manner he treated them, as you 
will readily apprehend, was well calculated to seize upon the feelings 
of the members of Presbytery.” 

Now, if it be true that Mr. P. travelled from New York to Ohio, to 
attend the meeting of the Presbytery of Cincinnati—that he occupied 
parts of two. days, in publicly advocating a plan of union which had al- 
ready been rejected by the Board of Missions, and also by the General 
Assembly, and in publicly animadverting upon a private resolution of the 
Board, and the doings of the Assembly itself—it is surely “no marvel,” 
that the Presbytery were at length prevailed upon by the pathetic and 
solemn appeals and entreaties of Mr. P. to appoint this Committee. 
But it is “truly amazing!”’ after all this, to find in his letters repeated 
declarations respecting the “ unfeigned regret,” and the “ unspeakable 
reluctance,’ with which he entered, six months after, upon the dis- 
charge of his “long neglected duty;’’ and above all, to hear him say, 
“the blame of having brought this discussion before the public belongs 
not to me!!”” If the journey of Mr. P. to Ohio, and his open attack 
upon the unpublished resolution of the Board, and the proceedings of 
the Assembly, before the Cincinnati Presbytery, does not amount to 
“ bringing this discussion before the public,” then we have yet to learn 
what publicity means. | 


7. FACTS IN RELATION TO MR. P.’s “ CORRECTIONS.” 


In closing his third letter, Mr. Peters says—“ Thus I have found oc- 
casion for a whole letter, tocorrect four sentences in the article under 
review; and I cannot bring it to a close without expressing my unfeign- 
ed regret that such a cluster of errors have been incautiously thrown be- 
fore the public, over the signature of an individual claiming the autho- 
rity of the highest judicatory of the church.” | 

The “four sentences,’ which Mr. P. has found it so arduous a task 
to “correct,” read in connexion, as follows:—“‘ The one, [the B. of 
Missions,| is strictly ecclesiastical, the other, [the A. H. M. S.,] as 
strictly voluntary. The one is directly responsible to the highest ju- 
dicatory of the church for all its acts, and is in all respects, under its 
immediate and constant supervision and control; the other is responsi- 
ble only to a small number of private individuals, and those too widely 
scattered over the country, and actually at variance in their views of 
doctrines, discipline, and ecclesiastical polity. The one proposes to 
conduct all its distant operations chiefly by the agency of Sessions and 
Presbyteries, the other by voluntary associations and agencies, wholly 
disconnected with ecclesiastical judicatories.” 

These “ four sentences,” express clearly, and without reserve, the de- 
liberate opinions of the Board from which they emanated, and by which 
they have been fully sanctioned; and notwithstanding the protracted 
reasoning's and bold assertions of Mr. P. respecting their incorrectness, 
our opinions remain unaltered, and we find no occasion to retract a 
single sentence. The Board, as well as Mr. Peters, have examined for 
themselves, the Constitution of the Church, and that also of the A. H. 
M. S., and they have also investigated with care, the system of organi- 


12 


zation, the plan of operations, and the principle of responsibility chosett, 
recommended, and published by that Society, and diligently com- 
pared them with those of the Board, and the conclusions to which 
they have been conducted, are fairly stated in the passage above quoted 
from their letter. It would not comport with the primary object of 
this reply, nor do the Board deem it at all necessary, to enter into an 
argument, to prove what Mr. Peters plainly denies—the constitutional 
power of the General Assembly, to appoint a “permanent Board to ap- 
point Missionaries during the year.” We shall take it for granted, that 
the Assembly understand their own Constitution, and that they have 
not been engaged for nearly half a century, in conducting the Mission- 
ary operations of the Presbyterian church, without having paused to 
inquire whether they were empowered by their Constitution so to do. 
If the Assembly have transcended their constitutional powers, and ap- 
pointed a permanent Board without authority, we must leave them to 
answer for themselves. 

“ CORRECTION SECOND” involves another constitutional question, and 
here again we must leave the Assembly to make its own defence. 

“ CoRRECTION THIRD,” requires a passing remark. The subject of 
correction here, is the clause which asserts that the A. H. M. S. is 
“ responsible only to a small number of private individuals, § ec.” “ Did 
not the writer know,” says Mr. P., “ that the A. H. M. S. is composed 
of all who contribute annually to its funds, and these are perhaps twenty 
thousand individuals ina year?’ “ Andis not the Society responsible 
to its own members?”’ Certainly the Board were fully aware of all 
this—but may we not still ask in reply, Did not the writer of this 
“ correction’ know, that the Board of Missions was appointed by the re- 
presentatives of the whole Presbyterian church in these United States, 
embracing in its communion nearly 200,000 members, and in its con- 
gregations, probably not less than half a million of souls? And is not 
the Board responsible to the whole church by which it was appointed? 
And did not Mr. Peters know, that “ perhaps twenty thousand indivi- 
duals,” is a “ small number,’ in comparison with half a million? It 
might be asked again, how many of the twenty thousand contributors, 
are generally present at the anniversaries of the A. H. M.S., to hear 
their reports, to share in their proceedings, and to inquire into the 
propriety of their operations? Certainly if there be hundreds present 
on those occasions, there are always thousands absent, and then, accord- 
ing to the reasonings of Mr. P., respecting the “ assumed authority of 
Mr. R.’s letter,” there is no responsibility at all, because there being 
only a small minority of the members convened, they cannot be pro- 
perly styled the A. H. M. Society. Such are the legitimate results of 
Mr. P’s own principles, when applied to his own case. But admitting 
that the Society is responsible to its members, and that these amount 
to 20,000, still it is strictly, literally true, in the comparison instituted, 
“that it is responsible only to a small number of private individuals,” 
while the Board of Missions is as truly responsible to the whole 
church, annually represented in the General Assembly. 

As to the responsibility of the Society to “ Churches, Presbyteries, and 
Synods,” the Board differ entirely from Mr. P. in opinion, and that 
too, after having duly considered the “ Stipulations, Resolutions, &c.”’ 
appended to the Annual Reports of the Society—and as these reports 
are “* widely circulated,” they would just refer the Christian public to 
these, and to the Annual Reports of the Board, for all the information 


13 


necessary to enable them to form an accurate judgment of the nature 
of the responsibilities implied. 

“ Correction FouRTH.”’—In reference to the assertion of the Board, 
that the A. H. M. Society “ proposes to conduct its distant operations 
by voluntary associations and agencies wholly disconnected with eccle- 
siastical judicatories,’ Mr. P. says, “I am not aware that this declara- 
tion has the slightest foundation in fact. If it have, will the Secretary 
of the Board direct us to the evidencer’? The evidence is abundant, 
provided it be admitted, that the Society “proposes,” or intends to doy 
what it actually does—or, in other words, that the doings of the 
Society are in strict accordance with a preconceived plan of opera- 
tions. It will probably be denied by none, that the Society itself is a 
voluntary association, “ wholly disconnected with ecclesiastical judicatories,” 
and according to its title, its jurisdiction is co-extensive with America. 
So far, then, as the Society acts, our aflirmation is unquestionably true. 
The agencies also, established at Utica and Geneva, N. Y., and Cincin- 
nati, Ohio, for the whole Valley of the Mississippi, “are strictly volun- 
tary, and wholly disconnected with ecclesiastical judicatories.’’ This, 
it is believed, is also true of the Missionary Societies of Vermont, 
New Hampshire, Maine, and Hampshire,—and by these associations and 
agencies, “ the distant operations of the A. H. M. Society” are actually 
conducted, as the annual reports abundantly demonstrate. The evi- 
dence is therefore clear and conclusive; and the declaration of the 
Board is founded on existing facts. 

The “ query” which precedes the “fourth correction” is fully an- 
swered in our last Annual Report, pages 15 to 203; and to that report 
the public are referred, for all that need be said on the subject. We 
shall take occasion, in another part of this communication, to show 
that the “distant operations’ of the Board are not “ conducted in the 
same manner,’ but in a manner widely different from those of the 
Society. 

In his fourth letter, Mr. P. contents himself chiefly with direct con- 
tradictions of the Board, and an appearance of reasoning in support of 
the three positions assumed— dissolution of auxiliaries not required,” 
—“union desired in the West,’—and “ Increase of evils not to be ap- 
prehended.” On the subject of “union desired,’ we have before given 
ample “specimens” of the explicit expressions of sentiment which 
have been forwarded to the Board by the people of the West, and on the 
other two points, we deem it unnecessary, at present, to say any thing 
more than we have said already in our letter. All the direct charges 
contained in this whole letter against the Board, its Secretary and 
Agents, and other “ exclusive friends,’ may be reduced to the four 
following:—1. Injustice to the churches west of the Alleghanies.— 
2. Slanders “industriously circulated” against the A. H. M. Society. — 
3. Misrepresentations, and 4. Unyielding opposition to the wishes of 
Presbyteries and Synods, and to the peace of the Western churches. 
To these charges we plead not guilty, and cheerfully commit the whole 
matter as it is, to an ingenuous Christian public for adjudication; not 
because we are incapable of offering a vindication of our conduct in 
the matters involved, but because we deem such a vindication unneces- 
sary—and because it is the grand object of our communication, to 
refute the still more serious charges which have been alleged against 
us in the last two letters of Mr. Peters. 


14 


8. FACTS IN REFERENCE TO THE “ ERRONEOUS ASSERTIONS.” 


The portion of our letter embraced under this head, is as follows:— 

“ By carefully analyzing these reports [the last Annual Reports of 
the Board, and of the A. H. M. Society,]| it will be found that the 
Board of Missions have actually sent into the field, during the last 
year, a larger number of missionaries than the A. H. M. Society as 
such has done. Of the 392 missionaries reported by the latter Society, 
it will be found that 196 are employed and sustained, not by the Parent 
Society, but by auxiliary societies, most of which were in successful 
operation, long before the A. H. M. Society was formed.” “This com- 
parison is not instituted either for the purpose of detracting from the merits 
of the 4. H. M. Society, or boasting of the success which has crowned 
the humble efforts of the Board of Missions; but it is instituted simply 
Sor the purpose of presenting more distinctly to your view, interesting facts 
in reference to both these favoured institutions.” 

The design of this brief comparison is so explicitly and kindly ex- 
pressed by the Board, that they were greatly surprised and grieved, 
not only to find the truth of their positive declarations called in question, 
and their motives suspected, but also to find themselves directly ac- 
cused of having “entered into details to depreciate the doings of the 4. H. 
M. Society, and to magnify those of the Board.” Here it will be dis- 
tinctly perceived, that Mr. Peters and the Board are directly at zssue, 
and that too,on a point involving the secret feelings and motives of 
the heart. If these secret feelings and motives of our hearts, are 
better known to Mr. Peters than they are to ourselves, and if the 
Christian public are prepared to accredit his suspicions and asser- 
tions, rather than our own candid and sober declarations; then we fully 
agree with Mr. Peters in the opinion expressed in his last letter, that 
“ Gt is surely time for the 170 members of the Board of Missions to give 
their attention to this matter, and by interposing their authority, to put a 
stop to misrepresentations, so manifestly tending to mislead the public 
mind! !? But if it be admitted that the Board are capable in any case, 
of being ‘ honest,’ and speaking truth, and that they are, on the whole, 
better qualified to ascertain and express their own motives of action, 
than Mr. Peters, or any other man; then, in the case under considera- 
tion, and in all others of a similar nature, found in Mr. P.’s letters, we 
have no doubt that the Christian public will give an enlightened and 
righteous judgment: and they will decide also for themselves, whether 
such “accusations of the brethren” ought to be countenanced and 
sustained. 

But, leaving these secondary topics, we come now to the subject 
matter of those “ specimens of the erroneous representation,” with which 
Mr. P. affirms, that the letter of the Board “ abounds.” 

Ist Specimen.—* The Board of Missions have actually sent into the 
field, during the last year, a larger number of missionaries than the 
A. H. M. Society, as such, has done.” “This statement,” says Mr. P. 
“is truly amazing, and I must be permitted to say, that so far from its 
having the slightest foundation in fact, the very reverse of this statement 
is true.” 

2d Specimen—* Of the 392 missionaries reported by the latter 
Society, it will be found that 196 are ‘ employed’ and ‘ sustained, not by 
the Parent Society, but by auxiliary Societies, most of which were in 
successful operation, long before the A. H. M. Society was formed.” 


15 | 

3d Specimen.— The 198 reported by the Assembly’s Board, are alf 
employed and sustained by the Board alone, without the agency of a 
single auxiliary of the kind just named.” 

For the import and correctness of these declarations, the Committee 
of the Cincinnati Presbytery were referred to the two last Annual Re- 
ports of the Board and Societys nay, they were “invited” carefully to 
“analyze” them. Our comparison was brief, general, and by no means 
invidious; and we thought it most fair, candid and honourable, to ex- 
press our own opinion of the contents of the reports, in this particular, 
and then leave the committee to base their opinion on a careful analy- 
sis. Had we really intended to “misrepresent” and “ depreciate” the 
Society, and to “swell” and “ magnify” the doings of the Board, as 
Mr. P. has accused us of doing, it seems hardly rational to suppose, 
that we would have directed the attention of the committee to the very 
documents, which on a “first perusal,’? must have carried to their 
minds the “ deep impression’’ which Mr. P. received, of the incorrect- 
ness of our statements. Of the intention to misrepresent and deceive, 
we hope, then, to be acquitted. 

The facts upon which our opinion was founded, were derived from 
the Reports of the A. H. M. Society, and the reports of its auxiliaries. 
To these facts the attention of our Secretary, and subsequently that of 
the Board, was first directed, by a lay member of the Board. In the last 
Report of the A. H. M. Society, page 11, under the head of “ Expiana- 
tions,’ the Board found the following sentence,—* The following 
abbreviations appended to the names of missionaries in the second 
column, designate the auxiliary societies, by whose funds the congrega- 
tions and missionary stations, against which they are placed, have been 
aided.” The plain meaning of this declaration, is precisely the same, 
as that of the term “ sustained,’ as used by the Board. Guided by this 
explanation, the names of the “ missionaries thus sustained,” or of the 
“ congregations and missionary stations aided,”’ were carefully counted, 
and the number was found to be precisely what was stated, 196. If, in 
this particular, the Board have erred, it was owing entirely to the ex- 
plicit instructions of the Secretary of the Society. But they used in 
their letter, also, the term “ employed,” and this, certainly is not found 
in the explanation of the abbreviations; but it is a fact, that both of 
these offensive terms are used repeatedly, in other parts of the reports, 
both of the “ Parent Society” and of its auxiliaries. Thus in the Re- 
port for 1828, pages 65 to 68, the “ Western Agency”’ in their Report to 
the Parent Society, speak of “a list of the names and locations of the mis- 
sionaries within this agency, with the amount of aid granted to each, and 
the date and period of his appointment.” Again—* The aggregate 
expense of these missionaries to our funds, for the year, including the 
compensation of the Agent of the A. H. M. Society, (who is also the 
Secretary of this Board) together with the incidental expenses of the 
Agency, such as postage and stationary, is $5000. Our receipts for 
the same period have been $5670 27,—leaving a balance in favour of 
the general treasury of $670 27.” 

In the same communication they speak repeatedly of “ our funds,” 
“our Missionaries,” “ our congregations,” “our Missionary stations, 
&ec.”? In the Report for 1829, pages 68 and 69, the same agency say, 
“ This year 69 Missionaries, including the agent, have been ‘ employed’ 
within this agency, &c.’”’ “The aggregate expenditure of the year, 
in support of these labourers, kc.” “The blessing of God has attended 


; 16 


the labours of our Missionaries. The congregations have increased 
and strengthened, at the stations to which they have been appointed, 
&c.’”? In the Report for 1830, p. 58, they say, “ The Missionaries ‘ em- 
ployed’ the year now past, under the care of this Board, &c.;”’ and in 
other parts of the same Report, they use language and make statements 
similar to those above quoted. This is also true of the Auxiliary So- 
cieties of Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine and Virginia. But this 
is not all—for it is not a little remarkable, that Mr. Peters himself actu- 
ally furnished us, in his last 4nnual Report, with the very words we 
have used. Thus, page 44, Mr. Peters says in reference to the Western 
Agency, “The number of Missionaries ‘ employed’ on that field, is 67, 
and the agency assure us of the hearty co-operation of the churches, 
in sustaining their efforts.” 

“The Maine Missionary Society ‘has sustained’ 38 Missionaries 
within its bounds.” Of the Vermont Society, he says “ Jts number of 
Missionaries is 27’’—and of the New H. Society, that it “ has aided in 
the support of 28 Missionaries.”’ But even this is not all—for although 
Mr. P. affirms of one of our assertions, that it is “ altogether a misrepre- 
sentation of the manner of the co-operation between. the 4. H. M. Society 
and its auxiliaries,’ we do nevertheless soberly appeal to that very plan 
of co-operation, for another tlustration of the truth of that assertion, 
and we will here quote from the last Annual Report of the Society. 

1. The 8th Article of its own Constitution, page 8th, which reads 
thus:—* Every Auxiliary Society, which shall agree to pay the whole of 
éts funds to this Society, shall be entitled to a Missionary, or Mission- 
aries, to labour in such fields as it may designate, at least to the amount 
of its contributions; provided such designation be made at the time of 
payment.” 

2. The 5th Article of the “form of Constitution recommended to 
the adoption of Auxiliary Societies,’ page 63, which reads thus:— 
“The annual receipts of the Society, after defraying incidental ex- 
penses, shall be paid over to the treasurer of the Parent Society, with 
directions as to the section of country in which it shall be expended in 
Missionary labours, should the Board deem it important to give such 
directions.” . 

3. The Ist and 2d resolutions recommended to the adoption of Auxi- 
liary Societies, page 64, which read thus:— 7 

“ This Society shall pay over, &c.” | 

4, The “reasons of the foregoing recommendations,” pages 64 and 5, 
some of which are as follows :— ’ 

“ By these stipulations, each auxiliary society is left to the znde- 
pendent and unembarrassed exercise of all its rights, in the business of 
appropriating its own funds to the relief of the needy within its li- 
mits, &c.” 

“ These stipulations, wherever they shall be adopted, will put it out of 
the power of the National Society to contravene the wishes of those 
whose business it is to manage the affairs, and guard the purity of the 
churches, in the different sections of our country.” “ Jt can plant no 
Missionary in stations yielded to the supervision of an Auxiliary So- 
ciety, Presbytery or Synod, without the approbation of the same, &c.”’ 

“ The missionaries of the auxiliaries being also the missionaries of 
the Parent Society, will be reported as such in our annual alphabetical 
list, with appropriate marks, to denote by what auxiliary society they have 
been supported.” 


17 


We have now furnished a part of the “misapprehended data,’ de- 
manded by Mr. Peters in his fifth letter, on the ground of which 
“Mr. Russell does not hesitate to declare officially, that 196 (not 91) 
of the missionaries [“ reported by’?] the American Home Mission- 
ary Society, were employed and sustained, not by the Parent Society, 
but by auxiliary societies, §c.’’ If the language of auxiliaries and 
agencies in their annual reports, if the declarations of Mr. Peters 
himself, and if the articles quoted from the Constitution of the Parent 
Society and of its Auxiliaries, and the resolutions and stipulations pro- 
posed (and “ adopted,” as Mr. P. says, page 64, “by the New Hamp- 
shire Missionary Society, the Vermont Domestic Missionary Society, 
the Hampshire Missionary Society, Mass., and substantially by a num- 
ber of other socicties, as the basis of their auxiliary connexion with the 
A. H. M. Society’’)—if, we say, all these things have any meaning, then 
to us, at least, it is perfectly obvious, that the auxiliaries and agencies 
of the A. H. M. Society, generally, do not only “ employ and sustain,” 
but also “appoint,” “control,” and “pay” their own missionaries—that 
they are auxiliary in name and form, but “independent and unembar- 
rassed” in fact. If it be true that the National Society, “can plant no 
missionary in stations yielded to the supervision of an auxiliary society, 
without the consent of the same,”’ and that the “appropriate marks” de- 
note “by what auxiliaries” the missionaries “have been supported”— 
then, why, we ask, does Mr. P. complain of the statements of the 
Board, and pronounce them “erroneous,” “depreciating,” “ inappro- 
priate,’ and “not sustained by facts?” Surely he cannot reasonably 
blame us for believing he is “honest” and true in his own assertions, 
especially in documents which he has carefully prepared for the eye of 
the public! And what have the Board done more than receive and 
follow his own principles and directions in forming their offensive es- 
timates. | 

In his fifth letter, Mr. Peters says, “ Al the missionaries named in the 
last report of the Society were appointed by the Ex. Committee at New 
York, and paid from the Treasury of the Parent Society, excepting those 
who were sustained by funds derived from ¢éhree auxiliaries in New 
England.’ But does the Report say this? Far, very far from it—the 
“appropriate marks” “designate the auxiliary societies by whose funds 
the congregations and missionary stations, against which they are 
placed, have been aided,” p. 11—they “ denote by what auxiliary society 
they [the missionaries | have been supported.”’—p. 65. 

The “ Western Agency” also say, in their last report to the Society, 
p- 58-9, “The missionaries employed the year now past, under the care 
of this Board, {67 in number] have been located within the several 
counties, as follows, having charge of one, two, and in some cases three 
congregations each, and deriving aid from our funds to the average 
amount of from $75 to $100.” We would by no means attempt to im- 
peach Mr. P.’s veracity in this matter, nor would we be understood to 
insinuate, that he has made any “erroneous asseriion,” but we bring 
these apparently opposite statements together, in order to show that 
there are some difficult points in the public documents of other socie- 
ties, as well as our own, which require explanation, and which ought 
not to be hastily condemned as “erroneous,” and “not sustained by 
facts.” Sufficient, we trust, has now been said, to justify the Board in 
the comparison they presumed to institute between the operations of 
the A. H. M. Society, as such, and those of the Assembly’s Board. To 

C 


18 


the results of that comparison, they were unavoidably conducted by the 
“ data’ already given, and derived from the annual reports—and not- 
withstanding all the declarations, reasoning, and accusations of Mr. 
Peters, they are still constrained to believe, that they did not err in 
their judgment in the particulars we have already considered. 

There is one of the “erroneous assertions’? quoted by Mr. Peters, 
upon which, so far as we have noticed, he has omitted to bestow a sin- 
gle remark. We refer to that which affirms, that most of the auxilia- 
ries named, “were in successful operation, long before the 4. H. M. So- 
ciety was formed.” As its truth is directly called in question, we feel 
ourselves bound to exhibit some of the “data” on which this opinion 
was formed. 

The whole number of the auxiliaries alluded to in our letter is eight. 
In reference to four of them, the Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, 
and Hampshire Sucieties, there will be no question, we presume, either 
of their existence, or of the success of their operations, before the for- 
mation of the A. H. M. Society. In regard to the Western and Cen- 
tral Agencies, the fact is not equally clear and unquestionable. The 
obscurity in reference to these, is owing to the circumstance, that their 
names and relations have been somewhat changed. ‘The change effected 
in the former is thus related in the 2d Report of the Society, 1828, 
page 65,—“ The Board, formerly denominated the Geneva AcGENcy, 
was reappointed by the Ex. Committee, Aug. 23, 1827, under the title 
of the Western Agency of the A. H. M. Society, for the state of New 
York.” In 1826 the Geneva Agency made a report to the United 
Domestic Missionary Society of New York, in which allusion is made 
to a similar report, made in 1825, a year before the formation of the 
A. H. M. Societys and it was then in successful operation, and how 
many years preceding it had been so, we have not at present the means 
of stating with precision, nor is this necessary, for the facts already 
stated are sufficient for our purpose. 

The organization of the “ Cenrrat AcEncy,” is briefly alluded to in 
the last Report of the A. H. M. Society, page 60. “In our former 
Reports, the “ Western Domestic Missionary Society,’ of the state of 
New York, which had the seat of its operations in the counties lying 
in, or contiguous to, the Synod of Utica, has been mentioned as sus- 
taining a considerable number of missionaries. That Society having 
been dissolved, and several Presbyteries and individual churches and 
ministers having expressed a desire that the Domestic Missionary 
efforts of that region might be more intimately connected with the 
A. H. M. Society, the Ex. Committee in October last, appointed a 
Board of Inquiry and Reference, similar to the “ Western Agency,” 
and denominated the “ Central Agency of the 4, H. M. Society, for the 
State of New York.” 

As we have already shown that “ most” of the auxiliaries named 
(five out of eight,) were in successful operation before the A. H. M. 
Society was formed, we need not stop to inquire when, or by what 
means, the “ W. D. M. Society” was formed; but we wish to show, 
that it was in “successful operation’? before it was converted into an 
“agency.” This may be clearly demonstrated by abrief comparison 
of the Report of the “ W. D. M. Society,” in 1829, with that of the 
“ Central Agency,” in 1830. From these reports it appears that the 
number of missionaries employed in 1829, when the Society was nomi- 
nally auxiliary, but virtually independent, was 64; the number of congre- 


19 


gations supplied “ upwards of one hundred, the amount of expenditures 
and appropriations, $6324 80; and the receipts and subscriptions, 
$6506 28.” In 1830, when the Society had been changed into an 
agency, and was “more intimately connected with the A. H. M. Society,” 
it had “received applications for twenty-eight different congregations, 
recommended to the Parent Society appropriations amounting to 
52116 66, and $1479 25 subscribed for the objects of the Agency.” 
We think it must now be manifest to every candid mind, that the 
declarations made in our letter respecting the Auxiliaries of the 
A. H. M. Society, were founded in truth; and the evidence already 
adduced on this point, we trust will be satisfactory. We stated dis- 
tinctly in our letter, and we again affirm, that we did not infentionally 
institute any “ depreciating comparisons;”’ but as we stand charged be- 
fore the public with having done so, we will now endeavour to show 


that 1 comparisons have ever been made in fact. [See Appendix, 
No. II. 


9. THE STRICTURES ON OUR LAST ANNUAL REPORT. 


Under the head of “ Numper or Appointments!” Mr. Peters in his 
fifth letter quotes from our last Report, page 24, the following passage: 
“The whole number of appointments and reappointments for the year 
is 246,’ and then significantly inquires, “ What does this mean? Is it 
not that 246 appointments, &c. were actually made by the Board, within 
the year ending May, 1830.” For the year, that is, from May, 1829, 
to May, 1830.” We answer,—it means what it says. “ For the year,” 
that is, as we clearly apprehend, the whole number of appointments 
and reappointments [embraced in the Report| for the year is 246; and 
not, as Mr. Peters is resolved to have it, “that 246 appointments, 
&c. were actually made, by the Board, within the year ending May, 
1830.” The meaning is so perfectly obvious, that we were «truly 
amazed’’ that it was so grossly misinterpreted. Had the Board really 
intended to convey the idea suggested by Mr. P. they would undoubt- 
edly have expressed it clearly, definitely, and perhaps tautologically, 
as he has done. But they manifestly had no such intention. It would 
have been palpably erroneous and directly contradictory of facts, repeated 
more than thirty times in the preceding details. Let the Report be its 
own interpreter, and no man need mistake its import. The details of 
the appointments and reappointments show distinctly, not only “ the 
year,’ but the very month and day when each was “actually made,” 
and also the precise length of time embraced in each commission; and 
in these thirty-nine (not forty-one as Mr. P. states,) instances, the fact is 
therein recorded, that this number of the appointments was “ actually 
made” before the month of May, 1829. How then could any man, not 
under the blinding influence of “ very strong doubts,” both of the sanity 
and veracity of the Board, have even suspected that they intended, 
directly afterwards, in the very same public and official document, to 
contradict explicitly those thirty-nine formal details! Had Mr, Peters 
permitted the Report to speak for itself, his inquiry, “ what does this 
mean ?”? would have been distinctly answered thirty-nine times! 

If this forced construction be inadmissible, then the report is perfectly 
consistent with itself, and we shall hereafter make it appear, that it is 
perfectly consistent also with facts, and that every important statement 
contained in it is strictly true. 

Mr. Peters represents it as a very extraordinary circumstance that 


20 


forty-one, as he says, but thirty-nine, as the Report states, of the ap- 
pointments named in the Report for the year were the “ very same 
which were reported the year previous,” and after referring to the cases of 
Mr. Baldwin, and Mr. Bumstead as “ specimens,” he inquires, “is it 
not plain that thus fo swell the list of appointments ‘for the year,’ by 
counting forty-one former appointments, is calculated to produce an 
impression on the public mind, far surpassing the truth, as to the efh- 
ciency of the Board?’ We answer, positively, no! For if the thirty- 
nine had not been counted, we should have come just so far short of 
exhibiting the “truth.” The precise and palpable object of the Board, 
in all these calculations of appointments, reappointments, and appro- | 
priations, was to present in bold relief the nconomy of their plan of 
appropriations. To effect this object they might, with the utmost pro- 
priety, have made all the appointments and reappointments, and 
appropriations, embraced in the reports for the fwo years, the basis of 
their calculations, but this they did not think proper to do, because a 
similar calculation had already been made in the Report for 1829, 
and its accuracy had never been called in question, because nearly the whole 
amount of services to be performed under these thirty-nine appoint- 
ments which were “actually made,’ but not fulfilled, before May, 1829, 
came properly within the Report for 1830; and because they wished 
to show by a direct contrast, that they had actually, in one year, re- 
duced the average amount of appropriation to each missionary from 
$300 to $130. These the Board think were sufficient reasons for pre- 
ferring the method of calculation. adopted, to that which Mr. Peters 
has been pleased to suggest to them. Had it been the object of the 
Board, in this calculation, to exhibit the average expense of each 
year’s labour actually performed, then, undoubtedly, a very different 
kind of “ basis”? must have been adopted. But this was not their object. 
The necessity of such a calculation was superseded by the minute 
statements which were designed immediately to follow it; showing 
that more than three-fourths of the missionaries employed were to re- 
ceive from the Board, $100 (or less) each, for a year’s labours and 
that not a single missionary of the Board, employed in the United 
States, was to receive more than $200, or half the usual missionary 
wages. 

It being, then, the exclusive and palpable object of this calculation to 
exhibit distinctly the economy of the Board in its appropriations, it was 
not only proper, but indispensably necessary, that all the appointments 
and reappointments made and accepted, and all the appropriations em- 
braced in the Report, should be accurately enumerated—and in this 
enumeration Mr, Peters himself admits, and has taken pains to prove 
and illustrate the fact, that the Board made no mistake! We sincerely 
thank him for the frank avowal of this fact, because it will supersede 
the necessity of any trouble on our part to demonstrate it. Mr. Peters, 
then, has ascertained, to his own entire satisfaction, that there were 
(including those of the Secretary and his Assistant) 246 appointments 
“actually made’’ by the Board, and “accepted,” too, we affirm, for ought 
that he or we knew to the contrary, at the time the report was made. 
He has ascertained, that the amount of time is really “in round numbers 
182 years’’—and therefore the Board in this respect have made no mis- 
take, and are spared the trouble of another tedious calculation. He 
has, also, ascertained, he says, that forty-one of these appointments 
were actually made previous to May, 1829—that “éhree appointments 


21 


are reported in connexion with a single name!” —“that six individuals 
received eighteen appointments and reappointments—that there are 
thirty-four individuals named in the report as having received iwo ap- 
pointments each, making sixty-eight appointments to the thirty-four 
missionaries!” 

But how, and where, did Mr. Peters ascertain all these acknowledged 
facts? Let him answer for himself. “I have cownted with care all the 
appointments named in this Report’ —“1 have carefully estimated the 
time embraced in the 244 appointments named in this Report!! It was, 
then, by a careful analysis of our own Report—by counting the appoint- 
ments and reappointments, and by estimating the time named in the 
Report, that he arrived at the very same results as the Board have 
briefly stated in words which they hardly deemed it possible for any 
one to misunderstand—and concerning the import of which, if a doubt 
should arise, no man can be at a loss, after hastily glancing at the plain 
and accurate details by which they are preceded in the Report. Why, 
then, does Mr. Peters complain, and bring forward against the Board, 
such charges as, if supported, ought not only to deprive them of their 
arduous office, but also subject them to the severest censures of the 
Christian church? Simply because he has dlegitimately inferred, from 
a single expression in their Report, that they intended to say, or ought 
to have satd—precisely what they never did say—and which they could 
not have said, without deliberately uttering a palpable and useless false- 
hood, and that, too, directly in the face of thirty-nine previous declara- 
tions to the contrary! With such unparalleled folly and iniquity, the 
Board stand virtually charged before the public, by the Corresponding 
Secretary of a sister institution—for he affirms, in one place, that their 
statements in this matter were made “ deliberately and with accuracy,” 
and in another, that they are “calculated to produce an impression on 
the public mind far surpassing the truth!’ Yrom this decision of Mr. 
P., the Board now confidently appeal to that of the Christian public. 

It is a fact somewhat remarkable, that while Mr. Peters has‘ alleged 
it as a very serious charge against the Board, that they have counted 
in their Report “for the year 1830,” 41 appointments which were 
named in the Report for 1829—the very same fact occurs in his own 
report for 1830 no less than thirty-six [not 39!| times. By referring to 
the details of that report, it will be found, if we have “counted accurate- 
ly,” that 36 of the missionaries reported as in commission for twelve 
months each, “are the very same which were reported the year previous !” 
The whole amount of labour actually performed by these 36 missiona- 
ries in commission for one year each, is precisely twelve years and nine 
months—say, in round numbers, 13 years. If we find it difficult to in- 
form the public, agreeably to Mr. P.’s request, “how it is” that 198 
missionaries have received, in a single year, 246 “appointments and 
reappointments for the year,” we find none at all in showing from the 
details of his own report, “how it is’? that 36 missionaries are named 
in that report “for the year,’ as in commission for twelve months 
each, while the whole amount of service, actually performed by them, 
was less than thirteen years. We can also show, that at this rate it 
would require 758 missionaries, in commission for one year each, to 
perform the 274 years’ labour which was actually done by 392. Ac- 
cording to this estimate, then, it is plain that 392 missionaries might 
have “received,” in a single year, 758 “appointments and reappoint- 
ments” for one year each, in order that 274 years of labour might be 


oe 


actually performed. It is a little remarkable, also, that there is nothing 
in the details of this report connected at all with these estimates, dif- 
ferent from the details of our own report, except the addition of a co- 
lumn in which the months of labour actually performed by each mis- 
sionary are stated. This we omitted to state in our details, (and Mr. 
Peters did the’same in 1829)—nor was this necessary to a right under- 
standing of our report. The amount of the labour actually performed 
by the whole number of our missionaries, was distinctly stated, in the 
body of our Report, and in immediate connexion with these estimates, 
to have been “equal to the continued labour of a single individual for 
more than eighty years.” On this point, therefore, the public were in 
danger of no mistake. In the details, the precise date of each com- 
mission was given, and the precise length of time embraced in each; 
and it was perfectly easy for any one to ascertain in a moment the 
exact proportion of time embraced in any given commission, which 
came properly within the particular year for which each report was 
made—thus in the extreme case (quoted by Mr. Peters) of Mr. Bum- 
stead; the report for 1829 states that Mr. B. was appointed, Sept. 24, 
1828, for one year. From this date, until May, 1829, there were seven 
months and six days—leaving four months and twenty-four days, of the 
time named in the commission, to be fulfilled after that date. It was 
of course necessary to name the same appointment in the Report for 
1830, because four months and twenty-four days of the service actually 
performed belonged exclusively to the estimate for that year. In the 
same way, all similar cases in our Report may be explained, if any ex- 
planation be necessary. We have presented Mr. Bumstead’s as an ex- 
treme case, because the appointment of Mr. B., and those of the Rev. 
Joshua Moore and James Smith, were the only appointments ac- 
tually made in 1828—(whereas thirty-six of the appointments reported 
by Mr. Peters in 1830, were actually made in 1828, and had been pre- 
viously named in the Report for 1829)—the remaining thirty-six ap- 
pointments were actually made in 1829, and most of them but a short 
time before our Report was prepared; and in our next Report it will 
appear that not more than six or’seven years of the labour actually per- 
formed under those commissions really belonged to the amount actually 
performed in the preceding year. But it was not necessary to deduct 
these six or seven years from the 182 embraced in our estimate, because 
it was not the design of that estimate to ascertain the amount of labour 
actually performed, and the average expense of each year of actual ser- 
vice, but the whole amount of time specified in all the appointments and 
reappointments, and the average expense of each year’s labour, accord- 
ing to this economical plan of appropriations. In the very next line of 
the Report after this estimate, it is distinctly stated: —* Some of these 
commissions have been recently issued, and have as yet been fulfilled 
only in part.” Some of what commissions? Certainly of those em- 
braced in the estimate, and distinctly recorded in the preceding details. 
It is difficult for the Board to conceive how this matter could have 
been more plainly expressed, than it has been in the Reports and it is 
equally difficult for them to imagine how any man could have mistaken 
their meaning, as the Secretary of the A. H. M. Society has done. 
The Board have not brought the Report of their sister institution 
into comparison with their own, for the purpose of charging upon 
their brethren, either “ misrepresentations” or dishonesty, but to show, 
that in their apprehension, it is open to the very same objections as 


23 


their own. They do firmly believe, however, that both Reports fully 
explain themselves, and are essentially correct, in the particulars 
above named. 

But, as the Secretary of the A. H. M. Society has felt himself not 
only justified, but constrained by a sense of duty, to subject their official 
doings, after they have been examined, and approved by the General 
Assembly, to very severe, extensive, and unmerited censure, the Board 
deem it proper in their appendix, to notice a few statements, calcu- 
lated to illustrate the fact, that to “err is human,” and that the best of 
men are liable to make mistakes. [See Appendix, No. III. | 

Our own report has been “ carefully analyzed” since Mr. Peters’ letters 
appeared, and we are happy to assure the public, that the result has 
been a full conviction of its strict accuracy and truth in every particular 
alluded to by Mr. Peters, with the exception of one typographical error, 
of which we shall presently speak. If Mr. P. has made no mistake in 
his own Report, for 1829, we are certamm he has made several in his 
“ careful examination” of ours. On this point we speak with confi- 
dence, because we think it is no vanity in us to affirm, that we feel — 
ourselves better qualified to judge in this matter, than even Mr. Peters 
himself. We have noticed some of his mistakes in this matter al- 
ready, and we have others still to mention. In the last part of his fifth 
letter he arrives at the positive conclusion, that the whole number of 
appointments “ for one year each,’ is only 136. The Board have never 
asserted that the whole number of “ appointments’? was 1363 for this 
would have been erroneous, the number being much less; but their 
Report does affirm that “the whole number of appointments and re- 
appointments for the year, is 246. Of these, 159 were for one year 
each, and 87 for a shorter term.” This is the language of the Report, 
and the exact truth of this statement the Board do now, after a careful 
re-examination, positively confirm, although they deem it unnecessary to 
furnish the public with “the data, by which to account for such a 
mistake!’ | 

We deem it also unnecessary to make any extended remarks respect- 
ing the “ specimens,’ (which Mr. P. has exhibited with notes of ex- 
clamation |!]| and interrogation [?]|) of the appointments and re- 
appointments, and appointments for two years of the same indivi-. 
duals! for we have yet to learn, wherein either the impropriety or error 
of recording such facts, consists. The facts existed, and in giving our 
details, we deemed it our duty to record them. ‘They are open to the 
inspection of the public, and need no explanation. 


10. EXPLANATION OF ‘THE “ TABLE.”’ 


On the sixth letter of Mr. Peters, which is much the longest, and the 
most severe, and, also, the most positive, we shall make but few re- 
marks, because some of the insinuations contained in it, are accom- 
panied by their own correctives. An instance of this kind occurs in 
reference to the “ Zable exhibiting a brief view,” &c. There occurs in 
this table a real error, and this is frankly admitted. It is, however, 
merely, and manifestly a typographical error! and the truth of this de- 
claration, Mr. P. himself virtually demonstrates. We shall state the 
facts in his own words,—“In the Report for 1829, (page 19) we are 
told that the * appropriations’ for that year were ‘about $15,000,’ and 
that the ministerial labour pledged under those appropriations, when 
performed would amount to ‘more than 50 years,’ and by dividing 


24 


$15,000 by 50 years, the result was found to be $300. This the Secre- 
tary understood and reported as the average expense of each year’s 
ministerial labour. But in the table before us, the number of years 
embraced in the commissions named in the previous Report, is defi- 
nitely stated at 60 years, which is ten years more than the number 
estimated in the previous Report, while $300, which was the result of 
$15,000 divided by 50 years, remains the same!”’ Had the difficulty 
respecting the 60 years been presented to us, we should have said at 
once, it is manifestly a typographical error, and ought to be 50; and 
had this been doubted, and proof required, we should have referred, 
as Mr. P. has done, first to the table itself, where the results of a deli- 
berate calculation show, that the number required was 50; and secondly, 
to the Report of the former year, where the number is distinctly stated 
to be about 50. And to make the demonstration complete, we should 
have added, that the number /i/ty is distinctly printed three times in ten 
lines, and twice italicised. And who would then have hesitated to be- 
lieve, that the error was merely typographical? “ How then shall we 
account” for the following sarcasm of Mr. P. immediately following his 
own demonstration? “ How to account for this clashing of statements, 
and this borrowing of ten, in division, without altering the result, I 
confess myself at a loss!” 

The entire correctness of the table, with this single exception, is 
perfectly obvious to the Board, however swollen and contradictory it 
may appear to Mr. Peters. The principles on which it was manifestly 
constructed have been so clearly developed in our preceding remarks, 
that we think it unnecessary to do more than repeat the declaration, 
that it formed no part of the design of the Board, either expressed or 
implied, in the estimates made, or in the table based upon them, to 
exhibit the amount of labour actually performed and the average expense 
of such labour; but it was their design, both implied and expressed,‘to 
exhibit distinctly their plan of appropriations, as an illustration of their 
strict economy. The table simply presents to view the results of the 
estimates made in the annual Reports; and in those Reports, the pro- 
cess by which these results were obtained, is accurately stated. Mr. 
Peters himself admits the correctness of the results, but complains of 
the process by which they were obtained; and with how much can- 
dour and kindness, we leave it for an enlightened Christian public to 
decide. ) 

11. THE TREASURER’S REPORT. 


The last particular embraced in Mr. Peters’ “ disclosure,” we present 
in his own words, and with his own emphasis, as follows:— 

“ Again, it appears from the Treasurer’s account, appended to the 
Report for May, 1830, that the receipts of the Board during that year, 
(exclusive of $1500, ‘ borrowed on the Treasurer’s note, and $702 ‘ due 
the Treasurer, to balance his accounts,) were $9668. 

“The Secretary in the table before us states the receipts to have 
been $12,632! ‘The public ought to be told how it is that these two 
official statements can thus differ $2964, and yet both be right! 

“JT have only to add, on this topic, that, if the Secretary is in the 
habit of indulging in such statements as the foregoing, in his official 
Reports and other publications, it is surely time for the 170 members 
of the Board of Missions, to give their attention to this matter, and by 
interposing their authority, to put a stop to representations, so mani- 
festly tending to mislead the public mind.” 


25 


_ In reference to the insinuations contained in the preceding sentences, 
and in many other parts of Mr. Peters’s letters, and aimed directly at 
their Corresponding Secretary, the Board have only to say, that they 
are happy to be identified with him in all the official documents which 
he has heretofore presented to the public, and in that which he has now 
prepared, in compliance with our instructions. They take pleasure, 
also, in assuring the public, that their Secretary is in the habit “of in- 
dulging in such statements” as contain and exhibit truth, as we think 
we have fully demonstrated in the preceding vindication of his con- 
duct and ours, from all the charges which have been published to the 
world, by Mr. Peters. If further proof be needed, of the utterly 
groundless suspicions indulged and expressed by Mr. P. respecting the 
veracity of the Board and their Secretary, it is furnished in the facts 
connected with this last subject of his animadversions. The public 
then shall “be told how it is that these two official statements can thus 
differ $2964, and yet both be right!’ The T reasurer, Solomon ALLEN, 
Esq. was “right,” because he reported precisely the amount which 
he had actually received. The Secretary, also, was right, because he 
stated in the body of his Report, as he was in duty bound to do, the 
whole amount of the monies which had actually been received during 
the year, not only by Mr. Allen, but also by Isaac SNowvEN, Esq. who 
acted as the Treasurer of the Board, for a part of the year, before 
Mr. Allen accepted his appointment and entered upon the discharge of 
his duties. The problem of Mr. Peters then is solved: his demands 
are answered: his charges are refuted: and the Secretary and Trea- 
surer of the Board are placed before the public unimpeached! — 

In the Appendix to this Reply, No. IV., there will be found a state- 
ment of facts, in reference to the “ radical difference’? between the plans 
and operations of the Board, and those of the A. H. M. Society, which 
we deem highly important and indispensably necessary, to a complete 
vindication of the principles upon which our missionary operations 
have hitherto been conducted. After an attentive perusal of this com- 
munication, and a careful examination of that part of our Appendix, 
in connexion with the second number of the same, we are entirely con- 
fident, that those principles will be highly approved by the Christian 
public, and that the conviction on every candid mind will be deep and 
irresistible; that the charges alleged against the Board by Mr. Peters, 
were entirely gratuitous, and manifestly unjust. We cannot find lan- 
guage to express the regret and astonishment excited in our own 
minds, both by the unwarrantable manner, and the extraordinary 
matter, of these unfounded charges. We were utterly unconscious of 
having betrayed the trust reposed in us by the General Assembly, or 
of having given any just occasion of offence to any kindred institution 
in our land. Shortly after the reorganization of the Board, in 1828, 
we addressed to the A. B. C. F. Missions at Boston, and to the 
A. H. M. Society at New York, respectful and affectionate communi- 
cations, distinctly avowing our plans and principles of action, and prof- 
fering on our part, what we earnestly solicited from them, a friendly 
correspondence and co-operation in the great and hallowed work of 
forwarding the missionary enterprise. We distinctly recognised, and 
cordially saluted both, as independent, but sister institutions, and 
manifested our disposition to reciprocate cheerfully all the offices of 
Christian courtesy and kindness. In our letter to the Committee of 
the Cincinnati Presbytery, we said, and now repeat it,—“the Board 

D 


26 


simply claim what they cheerfully yield to others, the privilege of moving 
forward ‘kindly, peaceably and independently, to the occupancy and 
improvement of such portions of the wide spread desolations, as may 
be fully opened to their view, and need their assistance.”” Under such 
circumstances we could hardly have believed it possible, had we not 
been furnished with an ocular demonstration of the fact, that we 
should ever be assailed by the Corresponding Secretary of the A. H. 
M. Society, not with calm, dispassionate and conclusive arguments, 
but with the unholy weapons of wit, irony and sarcasm. Such a 
course, however, has been deliberately adopted by the Secretary; and 
if confirmation of the painful fact be required by any, let them procure 
and read for themselves, and candidly interpret the letters of Mr. P. as 
originally published in the “ Cincinnati Journal,’ and republished, 
recently, in the “New York Evangelist.” To all the allegations 
brought against us, we have endeavoured to reply in that spirit of 
meekness and forbearance, which the gospel demands; and we now 
willingly commit the whole matter to the church of the living God, 
and its glorious Head, in the full assurance of hope, that the great and 
benevolent enterprise in which we are engaged, will be vigorously 
sustained by the counsels, the prayers, and the offerings of all who 
earnestly desire the prosperity of Zion, and the universal reign of the 
Prince of Peace. | 

In the name, and by order of the Board of Missions 

of the Presbyterian Church. 
JOSHUA. T. RUSSELL, 


Corresponding Secretary. 


Office of the Board, Philadelphia, March 2, 1831. 


APPENDIX. 


No. I. 


Office of the Board of Missions, No. 25, Sansom street. 
Philadelphia, September 15, 1830. 


To the Rev. Messrs. J. L. Wilson, D. D.,.S. Thomson, D. Root, and J. 
Gallagher, Committee of Correspondence of the Presbytery of Cin- 
cinnati. | | 


GENTLEMEN, f 

Your important communication of the 26th of July, was received at this office on the 
6th of August, and laid before the Board of Missions on the 10th of the same month. 
On account of the absence of many members of the Board from the city, it was deemed 
best to defer the particular consideration of your communication until after their re- 
turn, in order that a full meeting might be secured. Of this decision you were duly 
informed. On the 7th of the present month a special meeting of the Board was held, 
and your letter was again read; and after some deliberation, a decision on the matter 
submitted was postponed until the 14th inst. At three o’clock yesterday afternoon, 

‘the Board was again convened, and the following members were present, viz—Dr. 
Green, Mr. M‘Calla, Mr. Pratt, of Georgia, Mr. Russell, Mr. Winchester, Mr. Barnes, 
Mr. Sanford, Mr. Engles, Dr. Skinner, Mr. Allen, Mr. M‘Mullin, and Mr. Smith; and 
the result of their deliberations is expressed in the following minute and resolutions, 
which were adopted without a single dissenting voice. 

‘“‘A communication from the Cincinnati Presbytery, signed by a committee of several 
clergymen, was read, suggesting the propriety of establishing a united agency in the 
West, through which the Board of Missions, and the A. H. M. Society, might unitedly 
conduct their missionary operations. After a full conversation on this subject, it was 

“Resolved, That while this Board have the highest confidence in the integrity and 
purity of motives of the Committee of the Cincinnati Presbytery, in the suggestions 
which they have submitted in respect to a united agency in the West for conducting 
missionary operations; and while they sincerely regret that any difficulties and colli- 
sions should have arisen in the prosecution of this great and important work, they are 
nevertheless constrained, by a sense of duty to many of the churches and Presbyteries 
in the West, which are already auxiliary to this Board, on the plan which has been ap- 
proved by the General Assembly; as well as by their own earnest desire to pursue such 
a course as they deem best adapted to secure the permanent peace and tranquillity of 
the churches, to express their full conviction of the entire inexpediency of attempting 
to organize such a United Agency in the West. 

“Resolved, That the Ex. Committee prepare and forward to the Committee of the 
Cincinnati Presbytery a respectful letter, presenting in detail the reasons which have 
conducted this Board to the conclusion above expressed.” 

In compliance with the resolution of the Board, and in behalf of the Ex. Committee, 
I now proceed, gentlemen, to lay before you some of the reasons which, in the opinion 
of the Board of Missions, render any further attempts to establish a United Agency in 
the West, entirely inexpedient. 

1. The Board deem such attempts entirely inexpedient, because the Union contem- 
plated would be incongruous. Between the Board of Missions and the A. H. M. So- 
ciety, there is a radical difference in the principles of their organization, responsibili- 
ties, and plan of operations. The one is strictly ecclesiastical, the other as strictly 
voluntary. The one is directly responsible to the highest judicatory of the church for 
all its acts, and is, in all respects, under its immediate and constant supervision and 
control—the other is responsible only to a small number of private individuals, and 
those, too, widely scattered over the country, and actually at variance in their views 
of doctrine, discipline, and ecclesiastical polity. The one proposes to conduct all its 
distant operations chiefly by the agency of Sessions and Presbyterics—the other by 
voluntary associations and agencies wholly disconnected with ecclesiastical judicato- 
ries. Such being the true state of the case, it is perfectly obvious, that the Union pro- 

_ posed,.if assented to, on the part of this Board, would imply an utter abandonment of 
that whole plan of operations which they have formed with great i a and care, 


28 


which has repeatedly been approved by the Assembly, and under their full sanction 
been earnestly recommended to the churches and Presbyteries in every part of our 
country. It may, indeed, be said, that the ultimate object of these two missionary 
Boards is essentially the same—to supply the destitute with an able and faithful minis- 
try; and that therefore minor differences, as to the particular method of effecting this 
great object, should be disregarded. It is also true that evangelical Episcopalians, and 
sound Presbyterians, have the same ultimate object in view, in all their missionary 
operations—but still a union, between these distinct denominations, for the purpose of 
effecting this object, would be regarded by both as extremely unnatural and incon- 
gruous—and by the members of this Board, the proposed union between this ecclesias- 
tical Society, and an irresponsible voluntary association, is regarded somewhat in the 
same light. 

2. The Board deem further attempts to effect this union entirely inexpedient, be- 
cause it would at once dissolve an auxiliary connexion which has recently been formed, 
at considerable labour and expense, and after very mature deliberation, between this 
Board, and a large number of congregations and Presbyteries in the West. In the 
valley of the Mississippi there are, at the present time, ten or fifteen Presbyteries, and 
about two hundred Sessions, which sustain to this Board a direct auxiliary relation ; 
and in all these judicatories the plans of the Board have been fully approved, and cor- - 
dially adopted, and are now in very successful operation; and it is morally certain that 
the dissolution of this relation would be highly injurious to the cause of domestic mis- 
sions. 

3. The Board deem further attempts at union entirely inexpedient, because they are 
fully convinced that the proposed Union would be utterly disapproved of, and rejected 
by a large number of the Presbyteries and a still larger number of the Sessions and © 
congregations in the West. Not a doubt is entertained by a single member of the 
Board, that you express in your letter of the 26th of July, the honest and deliberate 
convictions of your own minds when you say, “ this communication speaks the senti- 
ments of a large majority of the brethren in the West, who have seriously deliberated 
on this matter.” In this opinion, however, the Board do not, by any means, agree 
with the Committee. For the last eighteen months, the Board have maintained an 
extensive correspondence with pastors, churches and presbyteries in the West, and by 
means of such correspondence, together with the reports of their missionaries. and 
agents, they have acquired, as they conceive, a pretty ‘accurate knowledge of the 
views and feelings of the people generally, in reference to this matter. In the course 
of this extended correspondence, they have received, not only from individual minis- 
ters and laymen of high standing and influence, but also, from several important Ses- 
sions, Presbyteries and Synods, the most satisfactory assurances of strong attachment, 
and decided preference. From the same official sources they have also learned, that 
many of the presbyteries, and a very large number of the ministers, and sessions in the 
West, are decidedly opposed to a united agency there for missionary purposes. Nor 
is the most decided opposition to all measures of the kind, suggested by the committee, 
confined to the West; it exists, also, in many Presbyteries and Synods of the middle 
and southern States, and their views on this subject have been clearly and repeatedly 
expressed to this Board. 

4. The Board deem further attempts at union entirely inexpedient, because they do 
honestly and fully believe, that, if it could be effected, it would greatly increase the very 
evils it is designed to remove. The committee state, that there are serious collisions 
and contentions existing among ministers and churches in the West, in reference to 
missionary operations. Now, if such be the state of things at present, when every 
presbytery, pastor, and session, are at perfect liberty, both by the decisions of their 
respective synods, and of the General Assembly itself, to connect themselves with 
either Board, as shall be most agreeable to their own wishes, how much greater would 
such collisions and contentions be, if those who have already made their election, and 
formed their plan of operations, should suddenly be compelled to abandon their favourite 
plan, and to adopt another to which they are avowedly and decidedly averse! The 
Board cannot hesitate to believe, that the, consequences would be disastrous in the 
extreme; and they do most earnestly deprecate the experiment proposed. 

>. The Board deem this measure entirely inexpedient, because they are fully per- 
suaded that, under existing circumstances, a far greater amonnt of good will be 
accomplished by the distinct and separate action of the two Boards, than could pos- 
sibly be effected by a united agency. Their conclusions on this subject are based on 
existing facts, and for a clear development of these facts, they would respecttully 
refer the Committee to the last Annual Reports, of the Board of Missions, and the 
A.H.M. Society. From these it will be clearly ascertained, that while the H. M. 
Society has been steadily and rapidly advancing, for the last two years, in its career 


29 


of usefulness, extending its operations, augmenting its resources, and increasing its 
number of missionaries, the Board of Missions has in the mean time, been reorganized 
by the Assembly, and under the most appalling difficulties and discouragements, has 
been brought up to the missionary work, with a degree of energy and success, which 
has far exceeded the most sanguine expectations of its friends, and already secured 
the confidence and patronage of many who were decidedly opposed to its reorganiza- 
tion. By carefully analyzing these Reports, it will be found, that the Board of Missions 
have actually sent into the ‘held, during the last year, a larger number of missionaries, 
than the A. H. M. Society, as such, has done. Of the 392 missionaries reported by 
the latter Society, it will be found that 196 are employed and sustained, not by the 
Parent Society, but by auxiliary societies, the most of which were in successful opera- 
tion, long before the A.H. M. Society was formed; whereas, the 198 reported by the 
Assembly’s Board, (to which number more than 40 have been added, since the Report 
was made,) are all employed and sustained by the Board alone, wit the agency of 
a single auxiliary of the kind just named. This comparison is n stituted either 
for the purpose of detracting from the merits of the A. H. M. Society, or boasting of 
the success which has crowned the humble efforts of the Board of Missions; but it is 
instituted simply for the purpose of presenting more distinctly to your view, interest- 
ing facts in reference to both these favoured institutions, for the existence of which, 
all who love the missionary cause, are bound to give thanks to the great Head of the 
Church, and in view of which, the members of this Board cannot entertain a doubt, 
that the separate and independent operations of these two Boards, have hitherto been 
blest of God, to the spiritual benefit of many thousands in our land, who would other- 
wise have remained destitute of the regular administration of the Word and ordinances 
of religion. By the exhibition of these facts to the last General Assembly, thesame 
conviction was produced upon the minds of the members generally, as has been express- 
ed by this Board in the foregoing resolution; and it was under this conviction of the 
inexpediency of the plan of union proposed to them by the Cincinnati Presbytery, 
that the proposition was dismissed by a large majority of that venerable body. The 
good actually accomplished, is apparent to all; but the difficulties and collisions com- 
plained of by the Committee, appear to be apprehended by comparatively few of the 
churches and presbyteries. 

The Board of Missions have never yet experienced, nor do they now apprehend any 
serious evils, arising out of the separate action of the two general societies. On this 
subject, they have never yet uttered a single complaint, nor have they any to make. 
They do most sincerely bid their sister institution, God speed, in all judicious efforts 
to build up the waste places of Zion in every part of the land, and in all the prosperity 
and successes of that institution, they do most unfeignedly rejoice. There remaineth 
yet very much land to be possessed, and the Board simply claim what they cheerfully 
yield to others, the privilege of moving forward kindly, peaceably, and independently, 
to the occupancy and improvement of such portions of the wide spread desolations, as 
may be fully opened to their view, and need their assistance. 

6. The Board deem further attempts to effect the proposed union, entirely inexpedi- 
ent, because all past efforts to effect this object have not only failed, but they have 
also occasioned serious disquietude and dissatisfaction, not only in the minds of the 
friends of the Board generally, but also in the minds of many of the warm friends of 
the H. M. S., in this section of the country. It is now nearly two years, since the se- 
cretary of the H. M.S. presented in person to this Board, a plan of union between the 
two societies. He then urged at full length, the reasons which rendered a union de- 
sirable in his own view, and in that of the Committee in New York. The whole sub- 
ject was then very maturely canvassed and candidly considered by this Board, and the 
result was a full conviction of the utter inexpediency of the proposed union. Since 
that time the subject of a general union, and also of a limited union in the Valley of 
the Mississippi, has been presented in various forms and aspects before this Board, 
and the decision of the Board, and of its friends generally throughout the country, has 
uniformly been the same. From. the proceedings of the last Assembly in reference to 
this matter, it is perfectly manifest, that a large majority of its members entirely ap- 
proved of this decision. The Board do very deeply regret, that the Presbytery of Cin- 
cinnati should have thought it necessary, after the doings of the Assembly, to agitate 
again this unpleasant subject, and they do now, gentlemen, earnestly and affectionately 
entreat you, and through you, the Presbytery,to consider prayerfully the resolution 
which they have adopted, and the reasons which they have assigned for it. They 
have no doubt, the Presbytery have been actuated by the purest motives in the mea- 
sures they have adopted, and in the propositions they have directed you to make to 
this Board. Your communication has been received, and considered in the same spirit 

‘of kindness and candour with which it was submitted; and after having bestowed upon 


30 


it the most careful and prayerful deliberation, the Board find themselves under the 
painful necessity of expressing in the most decided manner, an opinion entirely differ- 
ent from that of their brethren of the Committee and Presbytery. While the Board 
feel themselves solemnly constrained to adopt this course, they do nevertheless cherish 
the most fraternal affection and regard for the Committee and the Presbytery whom 
they represent, and they wish them to be assured, that the Board will promptly adopt 
all proper and consistent measures in their power, to prevent collisions, and to promote 
peace and harmony throughout the churches. The Board do most sincerely believe, 
that if the churches in the West, are left to make their own election of the particular 
channel through which their charities shall flow forth to bless the perishing, and the 
Presbyteries to adopt and pursue such plans as they may severally deem most expedi- 
ent to promote the cause of Missions, existing evils will soon be removed, and harmony 
and peace will pervade every section of the church, in reference to future Missionary 


operations. . 
BPic: of the Ex. Committee, and in the name and in behalf of the Board 
of Missions of the General Assembly, I am, gentlemen, very respect-. 


fully, yours, &c. 
JOSHUA T. RUSSELL, 
Corresponding Secretary. 
No. Il. 


In the letter of the Board to the Committee, it will be perceived, that they have dis- 
tinctly stated the specific object of the brief and candid comparison, which they deemed 
it proper to institute between their own doings, and those of the A. H. M. Society. 
They have solemnly disavowed the intentions imputed to them, and they are utterly 
unable to discover, in this letter, any just grounds of offence. A more minute and ex- 
tended comparison (which would certainly have been strictly just and honourable) 
would have led to results far more favourable to the Board, than any which have been 
stated in their letter. Such a comparison it is now necessary to make, in order to vin- 
dicate the Board from the charges, on this point, alleged against them by Mr. Peters. 

The following statements, which have all been derived from official documents, 
published to the world, will clearly show, that the “comparisons” heretofore instituted, 
were very far from having a tendency to “ depreciate the doings of the A. H. M. So- 
ciety, and to magnify those of the Board.” 

The A. H. M. Society, it is wellknown, was first organized in the year 1826. “The 
United Domestic Missionary Society” of New York, had then been in “ successful ope- 
ration” for four years, and reported at that time 127 missionaries, and 148 churches 
and congregations aided. From this local society, the national institution originated ; 
and in order that the doings of the national society, ‘‘as such,’ may be fairly and fully 
compared with those of the Assembly’s Board, “as such,” since its reorganization in 
1828, we must ascertain the precise increase of missionaries actually employed and 
sustained by each. ; 

In 1830, the A. H. M. Society reported 392 missionaries. From this number, let 
the 127, reported by the “ U. D. M. Society, out of which it was formed, be deducted, 
and the actual increase in the four years will be 265. But a large proportion of these 
were reported to the National Society as having been employed and sustained by aux- 
iliary societies, which had been in suceessful operation before the A. H. M. Society 
was formed. In 1828, the “ N. H. Missionary Society,” the “ Vermont D. M. So- 
ciety,” and the “ Hampshire Missionary Society,” and in 1829, the ‘ Maine Missionary 
Society,” were announced as auxiliaries to the A. H. M. Society, and the whole num- 
ber of missionaries reported by these auxiliaries, at the time when they were formally 
recognised as such, was 98. In 1829, the “ Western Domestic Missionary Society,” 
which was then formally auxiliary, but virtually independent, and which has since be- 
come an Agency, reported 64 missionaries—total, 162—which, deducted from 265, 
leaves 103. From this calculation it will be seen, that if the several societies above 
named had remained independent, as they were before their connexion with the A. H. 
M. Society ; and if they had continued their operations, wzthout any increase of their 
number of missionaries, until 1830, they would then have had in their employment 289 
missionaries—so that the actual increase of missionaries, secured by the operations of 
the A. H. M. Society, “‘as such,” in four years, was precisely 103—whereas the actual 
increase of missionaries secured by the operations of the Board of Missions, “as such,”’ 
in two years after its reorganization in 1828, was 167, the Board having commenced 
in 1828, after its reorganization with 31 missionaries, and having reported in 1830, 198. 
Such, it appears from the Reports of the several societies above named, are really the 
facts in this case ; and even in this estimate, we are very far from ‘“ depreczating” the 
doings of the A. H. M. Society, as such, for we think it would not be unreasonable to 


~ 


$1 ‘" 


suppose, that the increase of missionaries would have been nearly as great, if the seve- 
ral societies had continued to act separately, as it has been, by their ‘united action.” 


No. III. 


In the Report of the A. H. M. Society, for 1829, page 10, the Committee say—“ In 
the third year, which is embraced in the present report, the number of congregations 
and missionary districts aided, has been 401, and the number of missionaries and agents 
employed 304”—and yet in the details of the same report it is distinctly stated, that 
jive of these missionaries, the Rev. Messrs. Bradford, Espy, Orr, Osborn, and Stone, 
did not fulfil their appointments at all—one having declined—one having settled—two 
having engaged in the service of other societies, and one having removed. Two others 
(the Rev. S. W. May and H. Ford) are included in the 304, the former of whom had 
twenty-one, and the latter only seven days to serve in the year. Three others made 
no reports, and did not fulfil their appointments, as it appears from the subsequent Re- 
port. Let these ten be deducted, and the whole number will be reduced to 294. Had 
instances like these been embraced in the Report of the Board for 1830, the number of 
their missionaries might easily have been “ swollen” to considerably more than 200— 
but they deemed this improper, and therefore, in all cases where they had information 
that missionaries declined their appointments, or had engaged in the service of other 
societies, they omitted to name them in the Report. The extraordinary example set 
by Mr. Peters, in his anitmadversions upon the letter of the Board, would justify a dis- 
tinct chapter on “ ERRONEOUS ASSERTIONS,” embracing no less than ten formal “ cor- 
rections” on this single item of his Report for 1829. “ 4 just regard to the honour and 
purity of our benevolent institutions” does not, however, appear to us ‘ imperiously to 
demand” such an “exposure!” We cannot persuade ourselves to believe, that Mr. 
Peters really intended to deceive the public, or improperly to “ magnify” the doings of 
the A. H. M. Society; and although these, and a few statements, also, in reference to 
the amount of labour actually performed, may require explanation, yet we deem it en- 
tirely unnecessary and inexpedient to enter into a “ careful calculation,” to ascertain 
whether all the estimates contained in the Annual Reports of the A. H. M. Society, 
correspond precisely with our own views of the “ accuracy which ought to character- 
ize the reports of a Missionary Board.” For ourselves, we have very great confidence 
in the strict integrity and veracity of the managers of our benevolent institutions ge- 
nerally—and while we are fully sensible, that all our brethren are liable to mistakes, 
we do firmly believe that none of them are capable of an intentional fraud upon the 


public. 
No. IV. 


The following statements are designed to confirm and illustrate the assertions made 
by the Board of Missions, and denied by Mr. Peters, respecting the radical difference 
between the A. H. M. Society and the Board of Missions. The most prominent points 
of difference are exhibited in the following particulars :— 


1. The Origin, Title, and Jurisdiction of the two Institutions. 


The Board of Missions was first established by the General Assembly in 1816, pre- 
cisely ten years before the A. H. M. Society was formed. It was reorganized on its 
present plan, by the same ecclesiastical body, in 1828, just ‘wo years after that society 
was instituted. The Board then owes its existence to the whole Presbyterian church 
in the United States, as represented in the Assemblies of 1816 and 1828. It, there- 
fore, justly claims to be, “the Board of Missions acting under the care of the General 
Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States.” To this body it is directly 
responsible, and it is under its ‘‘ constant” control, just as truly as ‘the Vational So- 
ciety,” as Mr. P. says in the Appendix to his Report for 1830, p. 65, is “ consTANTLY 
in session!” The Board, then, has a distinctive character. It is really and exclu- 
sively a Presbyterian institution. Its operations are consequently limited to Presbyte- 
rian churches, and over no other churches does its jurisdiction extend. The A. H. M. 
Society claims to be a “national institution.” Its members and officers appertain to 
three distinct denominations of Christians, viz —Preshyterians, Congregationalists, and 
Dutch Reformed, voluntarily associated together, for missionary purposes. According 
to the sixth article of the Constitution, the Society may be composed of as many dif- 


. ferent denominations as there are to be found in the United States—for it says ex- 


pressly, “any person may become a member of this Society by contributing annually 
to its funds.” Its officers and directors are to be annually appointed by the Society, 
which may thus be formed; and these officers and directors are to appoint an Ex. 
Committee ; and among the powers of this Ex. Committee, the following are enume- 


rT 


3 0112 059259108 


rated in the fourth article of the Constitution—they “shall appotmt missionaries, and 
instruct them as to the field and manner of their labours; shall have the disposal of 
the funds; shall create such agency or agencies for appointing missionaries, and for 
other purposes, as the interests of the institution may require.” Now, if these be not 
prominent features of a society strictly and exclusively voluntary, and entirely inde- 
_ pendent of all ecclesiastical control, then it is impossible for such an institution to have 
an existence. From this voluntary society, which is also national, all agencies directly 
emanate, and these agencies are empowered by the Constitution to “ appoint mission- 
aries,’ &c. ‘Two such agencies have been established in the central and western parts 
of the State of New York, and one in Cincinnati, Ohio, for:the whole valley of the 
Mississippi, embracing one-third of the population of the Union. By these voluniary 
agencies, “ which are wholly disconnected with ecclesiastical judicatories,” the Society 
does “‘ PROPOSE (in tts. very Constitution) to conduct its distant operations.’ The Con- 
stitution of the A. H. M. Society no where recognises the existence of any “ ecclesias- 
tical judicatories,” to whom it acknowledges the slightest responsibility, or ‘‘ over 
whose heads” it-may not constitutionally pass, to collect funds, to establish agencies, 
and to locate missionaries. 

In the Appendix to the Fourth Annual Report of the A. H. M. Society, there are 
certain “terms and stipulations recommended by the Ex. Committec,” by which any 
local societies, whether voluntary or ecclesiastical, may, on condition of becoming auz- 
lvary, enjoy certain przvileges which are withheld from those who are not auxiliary— 
but does this imply responsibility to ecclesiastical judicatories? Mr. P. affirms, that 
the Society is “responsible to its own members.” ‘What does this mean?” The 
members of a society constitute the society. It is therefore responsible only to itself. 


. 2. Appropriations, Pledges, and Outfits. 


A very few facts will serve to show, that there is a manifest and very wide differ- 
ence in these particulars, if in no others, between the plans of the Board and the So- 
ciety. In this connexion, the practical utility of the offensive “table” and “ estimates” 
of the Board will be evident. In the last Annual Report of the Board, it was stated, 
hoth in the body of the Report and in the tabular view, that the whole amount of * ap- 
propriations’’ for 182 years’ service, was $23,782.34. Let this estimate be compared 
with the ‘“ pledges” given to forty-two missionaries by the A. H. M. Society, and it 
will be found, that $16,800 (exclusive of outfits) were pledged for forty-two years of 
ministerial service. In the Report for 1830, p. 40, the committee say, “in reference 
to these forty-two missionaries, that they have found it “‘necéssary to assume their 
entire support, including such sums as they derive from the fields on which they labour.” 
And from the tables connected with the detazls of that Report, it appears that these 
forty-two missionaries were appointed for one year each, and that the ‘months of aid 
pledged” were twelve to each missionary. Of these forty-two missionaries, eighteen 
were located in the State of Ohio. The amount of aid “ pledged” to the eighteen, was 
$7200. The Board of Missions reported last year thirty-six missionaries in Ohio, and 
twenty-six of these were appointed for one year each, and the whole amount appro- 


priated to the twenty-siz, was only $2585. On this plan of appropriations, then, the | 


amount pledged by the A. H..M. Society for ezghteen years’ labour in Ohio, exceeded 
the amount which would have been pledged by the Assembly’s Board, for seventy-two 
years’ labour in the same State. This, too, is exclusive of “ owéfits.” In the last Re- 
port of the Society we are furnished with no “data” by which the amount of outfits 
can be accurately ascertained—but from the Report for 1829, it appears that seven of 
the missionaries who were appointed to Ohio that year, (whose ‘entire support, in- 
cluding such sums as they derive from the fields on which they labour,” was pledged) 
received “ outfits” to the amount of $295; and that seven others, appointed to different 
States, received similar “pledges” and “ outfits” to the amount of $585. Total amount 
of outfits, to fourteen missionaries, eight hundred and eighty dollars. But the Board 
of Missions, although they have more or less missionaries in nearly all the Wéstern 
and Southern States of the Union, never allow a single dollar by way of outfiti—nor do 
they find it ‘‘necessary” in any case to become responsible for more than one-half the 
ordinary missionary pay, or $200 for a year's service. _ 

It is readily admitted that the A. H. M. Society, as an independent association, has 
a right to pledge its funds in such way as may be most agreeable to its members, to 
whom, alone, as Mr. P. says, they are “ responsible’—and it is neither our province, 
nor our intention, to bring any “charges” or complaints against them for so doing. 


But we do claim it as the right, and regard it as the duty of the Board, and its friends, 


to present very distinctly to the public, these important points of “radical difference” 
between the plan of appropriation adopted by the Board, and the plan of pledges and 
outfits chosen by the A. H. M. Society. 


s 


; 
| 


er 


